There’s an expression that cautions us to be careful of what we do or it may return to bite our bottom. This column was so bitten last week.

Skip Simpson, owner of the Anchor In motel on South Street, Hyannis, forwarded the words quoted below that he says came from the Facebook page of the Barnstable Coalition for Fair Government PAC that’s been sponsoring a string of debates prior to the Nov. 8 town election.

“Although we support the town manager and understand the toxic environment created by six councilors since the elections last November and December, we are concerned about the direction our town may take. We understand that Mr. Klimm might remain in his position if the current work environment changes, and we are committed to do all that we need to do to help make those changes."

Simpson wanted to know if this column was going to be “…equally as critical of the Barnstable Coalition for Fair Government…?” as it was in a 2007 column about a local businessmen’s PAC he helped form against the tax exemption issue. By the way, the exemption passed and nobody died.

This column would be remiss if it did not react to Simpson’s prod, particularly since the editor of The Barnstable Patriot is a real stickler for fairness, not to mention Old Glory and apple pie.

So this column takes issue with the word “fair” now contained in the PAC’s name as it relates to its Facebook comments that the toxic environment permeating the council was “…created by six councilors…”

That’s not exactly on target. It ignores mention of the considerable contributions the other seven councilors, former Town Manager John Klimm, the gag order he insisted upon, and to a lesser extent, former council aide Donald Grissom, all of whom helped pull the trigger.

This column also takes issue with the ‘Coalition” for its express single-issue purpose of defeating the councilors who voted their own conscience in ousting the town manager for whatever reasons they had. It was their elected right to do so…just as it is a lawful, if misdirected right for the PAC to work against them. Unfortunately, the buyout price was and is unconscionable, coming as it does from the taxpayer’s pocket. Klimm wanted it, the six gave it to him, and the rest went along. So whose fault is it? Who stands to gain?

The coalition’s goal helps explain why the Klimm affair has been a prime topic of its debates, some of which morphed into inquisitions about the Klimm rout, thereby wasting time to discuss the many other important issues the town faces with or without Klimm.

Consider that if the first spark of the ouster occurred at the election of the council president, it was with cause. The council had never before given its president a third term. In this case, it was painfully obvious it was intended by seven councilors to keep Vice President James Crocker from the throne. That’s pure politics and Klimm artifice assuredly played a hand in it as did the seven councilors sitting by his side.

Council aide Grissom is also at fault, for declining to make public the circumstances of his resignation. That may be his personal business, but it hasn’t benefited the greater good of the community.

Suspicion still hangs like a morning fog, despite their protestations, over the no-show councilors in the Klimm camp who absented themselves from the council meeting that fired Klimm. Even more so, it enshrouds council President Fred Chirigotis, who let the vote proceed rather than wait for the full council to satisfy the debatable charter requirement of a majority vote of all councilors to oust a manager.

This entire event was obviously ill-contrived by bunglers, and as it turns out, to the financial benefit of the former town manager. It defuses the logic the coalition tries to present to evidently return Klimm to the front office. At this point, it is a fool’s mission. Klimm has signed off and is moving on, considering other jobs. The town should be doing the same…particularly as it pertains to this election.

The voters of each precinct have choices this time around. No free rides. They have the opportunity to compare personalities, experience and political style, and reward good service with re-election if they so choose.

Absent any true confessions because of the self-imposed gag order, pundits and citizens are left to review the facts and reach their own election conclusions. They don’t need a coalition trying to saddle them with a lame-horse issue for the Nov. 8 race.